http://www.athbaseball.com/20100119137/2010-archives/january/paul-konerko-a-hall-of-fame-player.html
Paul Konerko is not a Hall of Fame player. I'm sorry, he's not. (And I'm not sure how much of a jerk I'll be in this review, weirdly. Please note, Sox fans that I'm not just bashing him because I hate him or am not as hot as he is claimed to be, but I bash credentials. Hell, Jim Thome looks like a fairy-tale giant but I love his power and ability and his character. So if I say something incredibly critical, feel free to call me on it as I'm not a fanatic of your team. Sorry, but I like my team DH free, my ballpark larger, and my homosexual fanbase fah-laaaaaaaaming!)
Anyway, let's see why the article is wrong. And as I'm new at this, let's try some Fire Joe Morgan style analysis. (For those who want to know, Fire Joe Morgan (FJM (and yes i do like parenthesis)) was a website that deconstructed sports writing and speech, especially bad sports writing that didn't mean anything. It took sentences like "that guy sure is gritty" or "he's a gamer" or "he has such heart" as reasons the guy was a great player and ripped them for the garbage they were. I feel the best response to that last sentence about heart calls for a quote from my friend Nate: "well, there's heart....then there's results.")
Perusing through MLB website this morning I came across this article on Paul Konerko. 'Konerko focused on upcoming season - Not worried about future as he enters final year of contract' It seems like only yesterday to me that ‘Paulie' was the prized possession of the Los Angeles Dodgers. He was the Dodgers two time minor league player of the year and comparisons of "Steve Garvey with more power" were being made. After reading the article I found myself reflecting on Paul Konerko's career. Whenever a player that has had a quality body of work like Konerko has and is at this stage of his career, I always find myself looking at his stats and pondering whether he is a Hall of Famer or not.
Generally, I wait until a player's career is over before deciding if he's a Hall of Famer or not, but whatever, dude. Go ahead and speculate early. Or you could phrase that sentence "whether he will be."
Let me preface this by saying that as a young adult, my position on whether someone was a Hall of Famer or not was black and white. Simply put, if a player's name came up and my first reaction was not, "He's definitely a Hall of Famer" without looking at the players stats or listening to anyone else's attempts to persuade me, then he was NOT a Hall of Famer.
Well then young you was a damned idiot. I didn't realize statistics were for the non-pig-headed.
As I have gotten older though the, HOF and what it stands for has unfortunately been watered down. I guess the committee feels that they have to have a ceremony each and every year so they make sure that someone gets in. No longer does a player have to be a generational iconic ballplayer to make the hall, they just had to have very good careers.
And you know, that whole character issue too. Character is part of why a player gets in or doesn't. This is also a really dumb way of looking at the Hall. Because (to put a white sox spin on this) kids arent going to care who Carlton Fisk is, but a few years from now, they'll care who Frank Thomas is. And yes, you could make the argument that adding new players all the time is diluting the Hall, but that's the same type of argument that wants the Hall to be 9 guys in a dusty room with no one else admitted ever, for the honor of the game.
I'm sure you can come up with your own player or two, but the most offensive induction to Hall of Fame to me was that of Bill Mazerowski. I know he hit a HR to beat the Yankees in the World Series. I'm sure you've all seen the replays of Yogi Bera going back to the left field wall and watching the ball go over it. That's nice, but that doesn't make you a HOF player. I know Mazerowski won eight Gold Gloves at second base in 17 years. That's nice too, but that doesn't make you a HOF player either.
Bill Mazerowski's average 162 game season was .260, 10 HR, 64 RBI, 58 RS and he is in the Hall of Fame. I don't know how, I don't know why, but he is. The only thing I can think of is that he was a really nice guy and the baseball writers loved him because there are total Jerks that played the game like Albert Belle who have put up HOF stats that will never get in because they were jerks and pissed baseball writers off.
You do know that Mazeroski holds the record for most double plays by a 2b, right? And that the fences in Forbes Field were pretty far back then, right? And that he hit a HR to win the World Series in Game 7 against the Yankees? Yes, HOF votes shouldn't be based entirely around sentimentalism, but they play a part, especially a) world series b) game 7, the most mythical game of them all c) home runs d) to win e) against the yankees, the eternal stand-in for evil (sorry dan, they are). And character is part of the HOF vote. Albert Belle isn't getting in because he pissed off a sportswriter; he's not getting in because he ran down trick or treaters in his truck. Yeah, he was a great slugger but he was also an unbelievable ass. That'll keep anyone out of the HOF.
There are many examples of good ball players that are in the HOF that I don't think should be, Mazerowski is one of them. I'm not trying to pick on him because I could have chosen any number of players that are in that I think shouldn't be, but the most logical example is the most recent announced HOF sole inductee to be, Andre Dawson. I'm not going to go into all the details here on why he should not be in the HOF, but he shouldn't. In many years when he was with the Expos, he wasn't even the best player on his team let alone in the National League or in Major League Baseball. That's not a knock because they had some very good players, but it is one of the indications that he should not be in the HOF.
In summary, a 162 game normalization of his stats would be 27 HR's, 98 RBI, .279 BA, 85 RS. While I do in fact acknowledge that before his knees did him in, he was a very good defender, when you place the bar of being a good outfield defender at Roberto Clemente or even a player like Ichro who still plays today; it's silly to even bring up the topic of defense into his HOF candidacy. If you want to talk about Ozzie Smith or Brooks Robinson and why they are in the HOF because of their defense, that's one thing, but Andre Dawson is not in the HOF because of his defense. Let's just say that he was an above average defender, but that doesn't mean you go to the HOF..........
Except that was a time of great pitching. The great freaking hitting explosion that you're used to isn't eternal. And Dawson is in the Hall because of two things. First, the move to Wrigley revitalized his career. He led an unbearable Cubs team with 49 HR and 137 RBI. He single-handedly turned a miserable Cubs season into a simply disappointing one. And he did this all with no knees, playing for peanuts on his contract. He was "The Hawk!" a Chicago legend, the man who came to Wrigley and threw a blank check down in front of management and said "Pay me what you think I'm worth." That's the kind of story that makes you happy. And if you want stats, he's also got 300 HR and 300 SB, the only non-SF Giant to have those (I had no idea the Giants were that good, huh). He's also in the 400-300 club, a club that has Willy Mays and Barry Bonds as its two other members. He has the 2nd highest non-juiced HR in a year in Cubs history and is one of the most popular players on the team. But yeah, discount the guy for your crappy article.
Andre Dawson was a very good MLB player. Dawson was an All-Star who compiled stats because of the length of time he played the game. But there is a difference between an All-Star and HOF Player. There was no era where he dominated the sport as the best outfielder. Calling it as it is, Dawson had one HOF type year where he batted .287 with 49 HR, 137 RBI and 90RS.
Frankly, I don't see how you can say Andre Dawson was a HOF player and have someone like Albert Belle who basically put up the same stats as Dawson BUT IN 12 YEARS INSTEAD OF 22! Is there anyone out there who would have rather pitched to Albert Belle in his prime with the game on the line than Andre Dawson? If they were on the same team Belle would be walked to get to Dawson.
That's because Andre Dawson wouldn't try to kill me after or during the game. Once again, tremendous ass. And I will admit that Dawson is more All-Star than HOFer, but you need to keep bringing in fresh people so that kids know the players that are mentioned. If we kept the Hall of Fame to just the All-Time Indisputable Hall of Famers, there would be maybe 20 guys in there, and that doesn't show the history of the game and the memorable moments and all that.
So if we are going by the assumption that Andre Dawson is a Hall of Famer, then why not Paulie? If Konerko simply has just a few more quality years doing no better than he's previously done, his accumulation of stats will surpass those of "The Hawk." In fact, at 31 HR, 100 RBI, .277 BA, 84 RS Paul Konerko's 162 game normalization of stats are currently better than that of Andre Dawson's!
I notice you're ignoring SB. Konerko has 8. In his whole career. 0 MVP awards, and only 3 all star appearances. And if we look at total runs scored by this point in both players careers, Dawson had over 100 more by this time. Konerko has more HR now, yes, but Dawson's SB helped a bunch. (all stats from baseball-reference.com) And furthermore, other than 2 more RBI and 4 more HR, the stats are virtually identical, especially as you're able to take Konerko's best years (youth) while you're stuck adding on Dawson's ending years as well, where his average had dropped and his playing time as well. Normalized stats for a finished player and one who isn't that played in two different eras is really dumb. Let's look at two players:
Player A 162 game average: .278, 36 HR, 31 SB, 106 R, 93 RBI
Player B 162 game average: .274, 33 HR, 3 SB, 84 R, 105 RBI
Player A looks better by most statistics. Player A is also Alfonso Soriano while player B is Ernie Friggin Banks, who any normal Cubs player would rather have any day of the week. And those stats are over Ernie's whole career. If we average Ernie's stats for the same years played as Soriano, from a less hit-happy era and a much crappier Cubs team, we get
Ernie Banks to age 33: .281, 37 HR, 5 SB, 93 R, 110 RBI. Let's hope Soriano holds up as well as Ernie did.
And if we want to go back to Paulie versus Dawson, let's average the Hawk's stats for those years.
Paulie to age 33: .277, 31 HR, 100 RBI, 84 R, 1 SB
Dawson to age 33: .282, 28 HR, 97 RBI, 92 R, 26 SB
Well it sure looks like Dawson comes out ahead in 3 of the 5 categories. And once again, Dawson played for one hell of a shitty Cubs team, in a park that is bigger than the one Konerko is playing in, in a time of pitching. (I don't know how to account for park size on b-r, if anyone knows how please let me know)
So if Konerko ends up with more than the 438 career HR's that Dawson had; more than the 1,591 RBI that Dawson had, and a career batting average approximately the same as Dawson, shouldn't Konerko be in the HOF too?
Once again, defense, character, the era of the game at the time, and the fact that Dawson's stats to this point were better than Konerko's say no. If Konerko can keep a .277 BA straight for the next several years, maybe. But when a guy hits 38 he ain't as fast at swinging a stick as he used to be.
You probably haven't thought of it this way, but Paul Konerko is the second most prolific hitter the White Sox have ever had standing in line only behind ‘The Big Hurt' Frank Thomas. I guess you could bring up Harold Baines, but it took him 22 years to compile his stats of 384 HR, 1628 RBI and a .289 BA.
HEY WAIT A MINUTE; Harold Baines' stats are better than Andre Dawson's! He's got to be in the Hall of Fame too right?
Sigh. He's only number 2 in HR and extra base hits. RBIs third, total bases 4th, hits and runs 6th, stolen bases nonexistant. He's good, but he's not the second best player ever. Luke Appling from the 1930s was that guy. Other candidates could be (depending on if you want to include their non-white sox years or not) Jermaine Dye, Carlos Lee, and the beloved Albert Belle. And Baines isn't in because his stats came during the juicing era, so his 22 HR/year average aint gonna cut it at this time. Maybe in a few years. He's been on the ballot for 4, this was Dawson's 9th time getting voted on.
All the great ones have nick names right? Just look at the ones we have here, "The Hawk", The Big Hurt." Well at least Konerko has "Paulie..." What does Baines have? "Harold Growing Baines"?
If Konerko puts in another 5 quality years, with the watered down HOF being the way it is, he's going to have to go in. I guess Harold Baines does too, DH or not. The bottom line is, the standards for making the Hall of Fame are now lowered so much that you can make a valid argument that Paul Konerko has a legitimate shot to make the Hall of Fame.
And that's the thing. The nickname or the lack thereof. Calling me Johnny isn't a nickname, that's a lazy extension. It's a matter of pride and what I've been lazily alluding to as character over the last dozen or so paragraphs. Let's play hypothetical situation. It's the 1987 or 1988 season for the chicago cubs and there are three random men on base, you're down by 3, bottom of the 9th, 2 outs, etc. Who do you want at the plate? From the Cubs? At that time, you wanted Ryne Sandberg or Andre Dawson, as Palmeiro is a juicer and Mark Grace at the time was a youngin. After the game, who do you wait for autographs from? Andre Dawson, the man who hit 49 HR and saved the season, and Ryne Sandberg. Basically, as much as heart and childhood heroics shouldn't play into voting, they do, and the Hawk had them. C'mon, the guy is nicknamed the Hawk! That's a nickname up there with Maverick or Iceman or Goose or whatever the 4th guy was. And he played until age 40 with metal knees. He took an NFL level beating for the MLB. That's strength of character.
Similarly, let's turn to last year's White Sox team. I need a HR, who do i go to? IMO, Thome or Dye. Then Konerko. And yes, he's the guy on the team this year but he's not exciting. He's not making great defensive plays, he's not stealing bases, he doesn't get fans truly excited (and feel free to call BS on this white sox fans; i'm just saying that i personally am not excited to see paul konerko step up to the plate)
He's a perfectly serviceable 1st baseman, but in a time when Albert Pujols, Prince Fielder, Mark Teixiera, and Adrian Gonzalez exist with their 40+ HR, 30 HR a season from Paul Konerko isn't that great. It's why he's not getting in to the hall of fame and why I doubt Derrek Lee is getting in either.
So that's why Paul Konerko sucks; because he's not a Hall of Famer. Music post later, possibly tomorrow. We'll see.
No comments:
Post a Comment